On 16:56 Thu 01 Jan , Junio C Hamano wrote: > Alexander Potashev <aspotashev@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > On 05:00 Thu 01 Jan , Junio C Hamano wrote: > >> Alexander Potashev <aspotashev@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > ... > >> > @@ -2447,6 +2447,7 @@ static int check_preimage(struct patch *patch, struct cache_entry **ce, struct s > >> > if (st_mode != patch->old_mode) > >> > fprintf(stderr, "warning: %s has type %o, expected %o\n", > >> > old_name, st_mode, patch->old_mode); > >> > + patch->new_mode = st_mode; > >> > >> Can you do this unconditionally, overwriting whatever we read from the > >> patch header metainfo lines? > > > > Do you mean overwriting of 'patch->new_mode' right after patch parsing? > > My question was if we should assign st_mode to new_mode _unconditionally_ > here, even when patch->new_mode has already been read from the explicit > mode change line (i.e. "new mode ", line not "index "line) of the patch > input. > > The call-chain of the program looks like this: > > -> apply_patch() > -> parse_chunk() > -> find_header() > * initialize new_mode and old_mode to 0 > -> parse_git_header() > * set new_mode and old_mode from the patch metainfo, i.e. > "new mode", "old mode" and "index" lines. > -> parse_single_patch() > -> check_patch_list() > -> check_patch() > -> check_preimage() > * make sure there is no local mods > * warn if old_mode read from the patch (i.e. the preimage file > the patch submitter used to prepare the patch against) does not > match what we have > * warn about mode inconsistency (e.g. the patch submitter thinks > the mode should be 0644 but our tree has 0755). > -> apply_data() > -> write_out_results() > -> write_out_one_result(0) > * delete old > -> write_out_one_result(1) > * create new > > Currently the mode 100644 on the "index" line in a patch is handled > exactly in the same way as having "old mode 100644" and "new mode 100644" > lines in the metainfo. The patch submitter claims to have started from > 100644 and he claims that he wants to have 100644 as the result. That is > why there is a warning in check_patch(). > > If we stop reading the new mode from the "index" line (but we still read > "old_mode" there) without any other change you made in your patch, what > breaks (i.e. without the patch->new_mode assignment hunk)? I haven't > followed the codepath too closely, and I suspect you found some cases > where new_mode stays 0 as initialized, and that may be the reason you have > this assignment. > > But the assignment being unconditional bothered me a lot. > > I tend to agree that the current "The final mode bits I want to have on > this path is this" semantics we give to the "index" line is much less > useful and less sane and it is a good idea to redefine it as "FYI, the > copy I made this patch against had this mode bits. I do not intend to > change the mode bits of the path with this patch." > > builtin-apply.c | 4 +++- > 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git c/builtin-apply.c w/builtin-apply.c > index 07244b0..a8f75ed 100644 > --- c/builtin-apply.c > +++ w/builtin-apply.c > @@ -630,7 +630,7 @@ static int gitdiff_index(const char *line, struct patch *patch) > memcpy(patch->new_sha1_prefix, line, len); > patch->new_sha1_prefix[len] = 0; > if (*ptr == ' ') > - patch->new_mode = patch->old_mode = strtoul(ptr+1, NULL, 8); > + patch->old_mode = strtoul(ptr+1, NULL, 8); > return 0; > } > > @@ -2447,6 +2447,8 @@ static int check_preimage(struct patch *patch, struct cache_entry **ce, struct s > if (st_mode != patch->old_mode) > fprintf(stderr, "warning: %s has type %o, expected %o\n", > old_name, st_mode, patch->old_mode); > + if (!patch->new_mode) > + patch->new_mode = st_mode; This is a _major_ fix, with my patch it would never change any permissions at all. I couldn't fully understand that problem last night, sorry for the noise. > return 0; > > is_new: -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
